Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29328 invoked from network); 16 Jul 1999 13:09:57 +0100 Received: from magnus.plus.net.uk (HELO magnus.force9.net) (195.166.128.27) by guiness.force9.net with SMTP; 16 Jul 1999 13:09:57 +0100 Received: (qmail 25133 invoked from network); 16 Jul 1999 12:11:43 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by magnus.plus.net.uk with SMTP; 16 Jul 1999 12:11:43 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.02 #1) id 1156ey-0006Oi-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:00:12 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from mailserv.cc.kuleuven.ac.be ([134.58.8.44]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 1156ev-0006Od-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:00:09 +0100 Received: from LCBD15.fys.kuleuven.ac.be (LCBD15.fys.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.80.15]) by mailserv.cc.kuleuven.ac.be (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA09590 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:05:48 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: <3.0.1.16.19990716140137.084ff15a@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be> X-Sender: pb623250@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (16) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:01:37 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org From: "Rik Strobbe" Subject: Re: LF: ERP In-reply-to: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Sender: At 09:19 16/07/99 +0100, you wrote: >Dick, PA0SE, and others have recently been using a multiplication >factor of 1.83dB to obtain ERP. This is the supposed gain of a >vertical antenna over a dipole because of ground reflection. > >Is this really vaild? Ground reflection surely must depend upon: > >(1) The efficiency of the local ground connection and > >(2) The conductivity of the ground > >both of which must have a much greater effect on the tiny (in terms >of wavelength) antennas we use, than a full quarter-wave. Isn't the >1.83dB a theoretical improvement that is not achieved in practice? > >I am sure I would prefer to run a dipole on 136kHz, than a 14m >vertical. > >Is this +1.83dB really useful at all? Or have I misunderstood? > > >Mike, G3XDV (IO91VT) >http://www.dennison.demon.co.uk/activity.htm > I have been thinking before about this same question : what is the effective gain of a short vertical monopole (= Marconi-antenna) over a non-perfect ground? This gain (against an isotropic antenna) is mainly caused by the 'mirror effect' of the ground. So if the mirror effect of the ground is low (due to high losses) maybe this gain does not exist. But on the other hand we already took this ground loss into account by the calculation of the radiated power (eg. I have 450W out of my TX from of which only about 0.15W is radiated - the remaining 449,85W is already dissipated in the ground + loading coil, trees, etc ...). It is right to take the ground losses a second time into account by not accepting the gain of a perfect (loss-less) antenna ? As additional information a small 'gain-table' : antenna gain vs isotropic gain vs dipole remark short vertical monopole 3 (4.77dBi) 1.83 (2.62dBd) = Marconi ant. quarter wave monopole 3.28 (5.16dBi) 2 (3dBd) = GP short dipole 1.5 (1.76dBi) 0.91 (-0.41dBd) half wave dipole 1.64 (2.15dBi) 1 (0dBd) small loop 1.5 (1.76dBi) 0.91 (-0.41dBd) full wave dipole 2.41 (3.82dBi) 1.47 1.67dBd) 73, Rik Rik Strobbe ON7YD rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be Villadreef 14 B-3128 Baal BELGIUM (JO20IX)